memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Columbia clipper
Welcome Hi, welcome to Memory Beta, the wiki for licensed Star Trek content! Thanks for your edit to the Jasminder Choudhury page. We've noticed that you've made a contribution to our database—thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy the activities of our community after reading this brief introduction. If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Beta, here are a few links that you might want to check out: * Manual of Style: Please be sure to read this before contributing, so you know how to accurately cite your sources, and search the site to make sure the article you want to make doesn't already exist. * Policies and Guidelines: For a list of the policies and guidelines that we adhere to on Memory Beta. * '' '': For a list of pages we want most, although any contributions you make are greatly appreciated! One other suggestion: If you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in a member's talk page or the community portal. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Beta! Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Captainmike (Talk) 20:57, 2009 July 11 Image copyright notices Please make sure you add copyright notices when you upload images. Keep in mind that there are some images from other sites you won't be allowed to upload here. If you aren't sure, check out how other images work, or just ask an administrator before you start uploading images. -- Captain MKB 03:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :Sorry. For some reason I thought that all Star Trek material here would be included under one fair use license. I didn't even think of including the copyright information, which is just as well, since I didn't see the license given by the creator of those image files. --Columbia clipper 04:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ::Did you have trouble understanding the copyright requirements? The Intrepid patch you recently uploaded again lacks any copyright information whatsoever. Did you miss what I said earlier about copyrights on images? -- Captain MKB 13:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC) George Dewey When was George Dewey mentioned in Star Trek? -- Captain MKB 03:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :The seems to have been named for him. (The other ship names of its class would suggest it, at least.) That's inference - if almost certainly true in the real world - but he's useful as an example for several missing ranks. If it's a problem, we can delete him. --Columbia clipper 04:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ::Doing so now. -- Captain MKB 04:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :::By the way, in the future, if you want to ask me something about a specific article, please ask your question on the article talk page. I'll see it just as soon, and the discussion will remain where it's obvious to everyone. Thanks. --Columbia clipper 04:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ::Well, since there is not going to be a George Dewey article, I figured that would be a strange talk page to start -- so I asked you here. Sorry if participating in conversations is a problem, but it's part of what we do here. -- Captain MKB 04:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :::I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off in an unfriendly manner. What I meant was that since the question was about the United States Military Forces page, it would have been best asked there, for easy reference for someone looking through the page history in the future. :::I don't mind conversing - we'd only have edit wars otherwise, right? ;-) - but I've had quite a bit of trouble digging through the histories of naval articles on wikipedia that have had their discussions take place on user pages instead of article talk pages. :::Truly, I meant what I said in the friendliest way possible. :-) --Columbia clipper 04:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :That's fine -- just trying to give you an introduction to the way we do things here -- some who are used to other wikis or coding might be unaware that other formatting choices or article validity might not apply here. -- Captain MKB 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC) --Columbia clipper 16:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Bolding Hi --just wanted to let you know that we'd prefer you use simplified code to bold words in articles. you can type commanding officer instead of creating an overcomplicated link. For example, your recent edits use a complicated code like [[commanding officer|'commanding officer']] and as you can see, this is much more complicated and therefore undesirable. -- Captain MKB 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :I think the non-wikitext editor is causing those. I wouldn't have coded that way intentionally. Hm.--Columbia clipper 16:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ::I guess this is a technical issue then. I prefer a minimum of formatting in most cases, and I've never used any application for editing the text, so this seemed strange. I've gone ahead and reformatted it to keep the boldfacing, but not the added code. -- Captain MKB 16:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :::Thanks. It looks like the extra formatting can be avoided by deleting the text in the lower box of the link editor in the non-wikitext editor, so this shouldn't be a problem anymore (for me, at least), unless I forget to delete that. --Columbia clipper 16:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Series page changes Hiya, I'm sorry to undo what I'm sure was a lot of work, but I've reverted your edits to the DS9 relaunch and New Frontier pages. As aesthetically pleasing as it is to show off the covers big it makes the pages huge. In the case of the DS9 relaunch it jumbled up the publication order to split everything into different types of media, and both pages suffered from losing useful information which the previous table arrangement made it very easy to look up. Additionally your format isn't as clear as it could be, it flows as easily down as across; so when there are long lists the pattern of what information goes with which cover isn't always obvious. As for the other two series, I will change Vanguard to the previously established format for miniseries, as there are only five novels in that series at the moment that should work well for the moment (good call on making that one horizontal). I will put Titan into a vertical arrangement like New Frontier, as it has more books in the series and I feel the new system does take up a lot of space and confuse information somewhat. Again, really sorry to undo what must have been a lot of work, but thanks for other positive changes such as adding new title images and such. If you still want to push for a more dramatic change across the board I'd request you discuss your ideas before instituting them across multiple pages - that way other members of the community can give you feedback to develop a system that meets everyone's requirements. --8of5 12:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC) MA copying Hello, I've noticed some of your recent edits are copies of Memory Alpha articles. While you were at least courteous enough to correctly reformat the articles to work here I'm afraid it's still not a practice we allow. I shall rewrite and/or delete the effected articles. Please don’t do this again. Thanks :) --8of5 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) NCC-1701-E Hey, what's the problem with the Enterprise-E article? I haven't seen you leave a new talk page comment on Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E). -- Captain MKB 04:53, November 9, 2009 (UTC) :Sorry. The opening section isn't properly cited. The information comes from multiple sources, but only one is identified. --Columbia clipper 14:15, November 9, 2009 (UTC) M Kadohata Hey, I have a bit of a problem with the reintroduction of the older version of the M Kadohata picture -- it introduces some smears of yellow on the gray part of the uniform jacket where it looks like her uniform and collar were unsuccessfully merged, as well as uneven edges on her shoulder on the left side of the image. I realize you might have been working on these and not noticed that the photoshop had some imperfections, but I rather prefer to correct all such mistakes before using the image on a Memory Beta article. I corrected them using a blur and grain combination of enhancements, and I don't understand your reasoning for re-introducing a poorer quality image. -- Captain MKB 18:28, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :I looked for them carefully, but I don't see the splotches you describe. I replaced the image largely because the new version was very grainy, and because the coloring had been altered to a yellowish tint and the image had been noticeably brightened. I tried to keep the coloring and lighting of all new elements as close as possible to the original Chaves-Jacobsen image when I photoshopped it, because of that image's natural lighting. I did make several changes to the existing image, incorporating corrections I'd noticed in your version. --Columbia clipper 18:35, November 28, 2009 (UTC) Well, there were spots of her yellow collar on the gray part of the uniform. This is possibly a problem resulting from use of a clone function. This also seems to occur on the left side where the shoulder meets the new background -- there is a border of a different color left from the previous background. To smooth these, the film grain and contrast filter slightly altered the color density to hide these imperfections, but I can't see why you place value on fading the original color ever so slightly if the end effect is to hide the problems with the image. I see that you've uploaded a second and perhaps I was looking at the first in the series, we might be discussing different revisions here. -- Captain MKB 18:50, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :I think we are. I've uploaded an additional version to correct further mistakes I hadn't noticed. As it happens, I don't know how to use the clone tool, so I used the uniform as a mask above the collar (i.e. it was a higher layer from which I subtracted information (blue tunic/collar) carefully to leave only the gray uniform). Regarding the color and grain: I dislike adding noise to hide (what I think are minor) imperfections. The quality of the whole image suffers, and attention is drawn to its discontinuities on the whole. I also prefer to keep the colors as flattering and accurate as possible. --Columbia clipper 18:55, November 28, 2009 (UTC) ::The latest revision corrects a lot of the issues. ::Accuracy should be discussed further -- another user on file talk:m Kadohata.jpeg raised the question of whether or not the easily-identifiable BSG color scheme should be altered to fit into the milieu of Federation starships of the 24th century Star Trek universe. -- Captain MKB 19:11, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :::Well, this seems to be mostly resolved, I want to thank you for going through the paces of getting this image together -- its not an easy thing to take a critique from the community and you've made this a top-notch contribution to the site. -- Captain MKB 15:03, November 29, 2009 (UTC) Assignment insignia Hi, we generally put any governmental emblems, badges or assignment insignia in the image field if there isn't an image available for a character. In this way, we can save space in the table and make the placement of the images a little less awkward. I've been setting things up like this for quite some time, and other users have agreed with and supported this by making similar edits to character articles they work on. I'm gathering you don't agree since you've started a couple edit wars on my formatting work on the wiki today (i've been refining character articles all weekend). Keep in mind that 'edit warring' is not an acceptable way to try and assert a point you want to make. I can't hear you unless you use your voice and start a discussion on a talk page. Like I just did. Be a bigger person, explain yourself, don't edit war. -- Captain MKB 19:45, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :I apologize. I didn't mean to edit war; I was in a hurry, and hoped that my brief comments in the edits would be enough to convey my point, which I didn't have time to address fully. :What I was trying to say is that assignment insignia of should always be placed with rank insignia - in the insignia box at the bottom of the template. If a character does have a picture, the insignia is placed there. For consistency, the insignia of characters who don't have pictures should be placed there, too. That way, it will always be in the same place. :If it's better to display two emblems in place of an image, the Starfleet crest of the respective period (i.e. the Earth Starfleet emblem or the Federation Starfleet emblem) is available, and would be a better choice. :Sorry, again. I'll put off commenting if I'm short on time in the future. --Columbia clipper 19:26, December 2, 2009 (UTC) Image uploads Hey, I noticed you introduced a couple of new images by uploading them over existing images yesterday. Please keep in mind that we can have multiple images of Saavik and Tuchinsky that show different angles of the character, so the older images would be useful to keep. if you really want to upload more images of a character showing a different point in their lives, go ahead and create a new image. the older images can then be kept or discarded depending on need/quality and we can be more informative in that way -- Captain MKB 12:07, July 2, 2010 (UTC) :I overwrote the images because the ones we had were of poor quality. The new images are from only a year before the others in-universe, and I've identified some images in other issues set in 2287 - the year of the overwritten images - that aren't of such low quality. I'll upload them as second images in the next few days. --Columbia clipper 20:44, July 2, 2010 (UTC) :user:sulfur was gracious enough to clean up the image uploads with your new sources. please observe what he did to correct the sources so you can do it like that in the future. -- Captain MKB 12:33, July 2, 2010 (UTC) ::I appreciate his help, and am somewhat embarrassed to have forgotten to fix the image descriptions when I uploaded the new versions. --Columbia clipper 20:44, July 2, 2010 (UTC) :No problem, I'm glad you care enough to want to see better pictures uploaded. -- Captain MKB 22:29, July 2, 2010 (UTC) list citations Heya, great work you've been doing on the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) personnel, could I just ask you to add one additional piece of information: citations, preferably using the reference tagging system, which you can see an example of on the Deep Space 9 personnel page. :) --8of5 23:51, July 6, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks. I've been meaning to add references for all the personnel and known transfer times, but had put it off until finishing the personnel list, if only so I'd only have to do it once. Thanks for the reminder, though; all of the references should be tagged over the next few days. The remaining steps will be to add articles for all the currently red links, and clean up the existing articles that are incomplete or improperly sourced. That will probably take a few more days. --Columbia clipper 23:58, July 6, 2010 (UTC) Picture Nice picture of Heinlein. I read Starship Troopers at a very influential age. – AT2Howell 21:15, July 22, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks. I didn't discover him until college, but was very impressed. --Columbia clipper 21:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC) I've read most everything the man ever wrote. In college (the first time) I wrote two essays on his work, and recently I wrote one on the man himself. I do wish he had written just one Trek book. – AT2Howell 21:34, July 22, 2010 (UTC) Edit war This is your warning, please don't edit war. If you had read my last edit to the 2278s uniform article, you would see that that article describes all three uniforms and I removed the link because of that fact. Please use a talk page to discuss a disagreement with another user's edits instead of starting trouble by edit wars. -- Captain MKB 16:05, July 24, 2010 (UTC) :I didn't mean to start an edit war. Your comment on your edit to the page ("huh?") suggested that you weren't familiar with a reason for the article to be changed, so I changed it back and included some explanatory rationale (and a period which our anonymous associate missed), which the previous editor had omitted. :The changes between the periods are somewhat more significant than the article you reference describes. Unless there's a problem with this, I'd like to revamp that article to make it more detailed in its description and depiction of the 2278-2320s uniform design, and create similarly descriptive (though less detailed, given the relative dearth of sources) articles about the uniforms worn between the 2320s and 2340s and between the 2340s and 2350s. --Columbia clipper 16:11, July 24, 2010 (UTC) ::I'd also like to point out that the only one of us who has engaged in edit war-like practice in this instance is you, in reverting my edit, which was made in good faith, as I described above. As you said, please use a talk page to discuss a disagreement with another user's edits instead of starting trouble by edit wars. --Columbia clipper 16:18, July 24, 2010 (UTC) :If you had read some of the 3 kilobytes of data i wrote into the uniform article itself after I said 'huh?', you would see that I was expanding the article to cover the three variations. It's a little bit ignorant to start moving the articles while I'm working on it -- especially since the change of the topic would make the work that I was doing unnecessary. It's called courtesy to a fellow editor, and should have necessitated the use of a talk page. :This is besides the fact that I disagree with your reasoning. --> The only changes are the undershirt usage, the belt usage and the combadge usage. The tailoring of the uniforms does not change, just a use of those three accessories. :The articles would be a lot more efficient -merged-, because otherwise we'd have three articles with an insane amount of identical detail regarding trouser stripes with/w/o gold braid soutache, department bands and divisional/provisional/co-divisional color stripes slashes. :It's a lot easier to write one article with all the details, and a description of three minor changes, instead of duplicating all the details into three separate articles about what are not even changes in the tailoring of the uniforms. -- Captain MKB 16:27, July 24, 2010 (UTC) :::I hadn't read that data because your edits (after the first one) hadn't appeared on the "recent changes" page when I visited it. I opened several articles from that page to see what the recent updates were, and whether I could add anything. When I reached the Starfleet Uniforms page, I checked its history, saw what had transpired on that page, and tried to help. Had I seen your edits to the other page at that time, I probably would have addressed the talk page rather than editing, because I would have been aware of your knowledge of the differences. (Would you mind commenting more specifically in the future; my misunderstanding of your expression of confusion precipitated this situation.) :::You raise a good point about duplication. I think you're right in that regard. Would you object to the inclusion of three pictures on the uniform eras page, though? The links beneath them would read as they did on the version of the page I edited, but the actual hyperlinks would be to either just the same page or to the specific parts of that page that related to the specific sub-era. I think the differences - like the differences in the 2350s-226X and 226X-2373 uniforms - are nicely illustrated by a picture there. (Actually, the 2350s-226X and 226X-2373 pages should probably be combined in the same way; there are some differences between the periods - namely fit, collar, and trim, but the uniforms are otherwise substantially the same.) :::The other difference between the 2278-2320s uniforms and the 2320s and forward uniforms (both styles) is division: the later series of uniforms have only three division colors, which essentially align with the TNG-era divisions (white: command, flight, etc.; gold: engineering, security; gray: science, medical) --Columbia clipper 17:05, July 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::The mid-23rd Century uniforms might also be combined. They're substantially similar (black pants and boots, department-colored shirt, sleeve rank indicators, assignment badge on chest bearing division insignia, etc.) The differences between the periods are generally similar in magnitude to those between the later periods: material change, collar change, insignia change, division alignment change. --Columbia clipper 17:16, July 24, 2010 (UTC) ::As to 'edit wars' and 'courtesy', the fact remains that I started editing two and-a-half hours ago based on a solid premise, you started reverting my edits while I was still working on that premise about twenty minutes ago, which means that while I was still writing, i received a notice that you had moved the article without using a talk page to let me know that I was about to be involved in an edit conflict. My actions in moving the articles back was because I wanted to continue my edits in progress, which I had not received any notice contesting. You're digging a hole here and it's obvious you don't want this to be a constructive discussion if you are starting to discuss my behavior rather that the source material i'm writing about -- it pretty much amounts to an admission that you don't have a competent argument to contest my edits or subject matter. -- Captain MKB 16:39, July 24, 2010 (UTC) :::I'm curious how I'm digging a hole. I have discussed your actions to no further extent than you have discussed mine, and have responded constructively from the start. Despite the frustration you experienced, I had no way of knowing you were involved in an extensive edit, and acted in no way that wasn't in good faith. As you see above, I continue to engage in constructive discussion, the positive resolution of which is my aim. :::What I don't follow is the reason for your animosity and cryptic warnings. Have I yet responded in a way that wasn't civil and in good faith - in any of my interactions here, today or otherwise? :::For what it's worth, I've often found that a page I've been working on was edited while I was in the middle of a long edit, but I've always stopped at that point and incorporated the intermediate edit into the edit I've made. (A case in point is this discussion: you made an edit while I was responding, and I incorporated what you wrote into this page while I was working.) It's fairly easy to do, and avoids unnecessary reversions of others' work. Even if a page is moved, it's not difficult to add the amalgamated edit to the new page, rather than the old one. --Columbia clipper 17:05, July 24, 2010 (UTC) :I was ready to start discussing the subject at hand, as you had begun to do, but your comment dated 16:18 above started a further discussion about my behavior, at a point where you probably should have just moved on. That i what I referred to. I'm frustrated at being interrputed rudely, and don't need you making confrontational statements like "I'd also like to point out that the only one of us who has engaged in edit war-like practice in this instance is you" -- you'd already apologized somewhat and we could have moved on if you hadn't made a remark commenting (incorrectly) on my (supposed) behavior to fuel the animosity of the discussion. :Also, please don't scroll up and insert new comments into the previous parts of the discussion. I don't even know what you're writing about because I don't intend to scroll up to the top and reread this whole argument again. :If you read my input above, you can see that I am qualifying these articles on the basis of changes that would require a tailor to alter the clothing. Using this as a rule of deciding where the differences lie, you can see that the 23rd century TOS uniforms and the TNG uniform change are both turning points, because the way the uniforms were tailored were changed with new collars and fastenings. :By that same token, the monster maroons has only pieces changed, without major changes to the divisional sets or rank insignia. The actual uniform jackets remained fastened and worn the same way, with only subtraction/substitution of the undershirts, belts and combadges. It's not a different uniform. -- Captain MKB 17:32, July 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Sorry, like you, I was frustrated at what I perceived as a confrontational approach. I've contributed prolifically to this wiki for more than a year, and have never acted in anything but good faith. So, I was taken aback by your comment that "this is your warning", and was frustrated that someone with whom I've interacted with frequently here would immediately conclude that I was engaging in an edit war, which I would never knowingly do. ::I'm sorry for interrupting your edits. As I said before, I had no way of knowing you were editing at the time, so I didn't mean to be rude. I am sorry for the frustration I caused, nonetheless. ::I've taken further discussion of the central issue here to the discussion you started on the topic on the article's talk page. --Columbia clipper 18:06, July 24, 2010 (UTC) Grand Admiral and the C-in-C Robert Fletcher, the creator of the rank system used in the movies, very specifically wrote in his notes under the rank stripes for C-in-C "Fleet Admiral serving as Commander-in-Chief", showing for certain that the position was held by a Fleet Admiral, and not by some non-existent rank. Stephen Turner is the only Grand Admiral ever seen, and he was never referred to as the C-in-C, making for a dual assumption with absolutely zero evidence. Please change all pages other than Turner's back to "Fleet Admiral", and don't assume something without first checking to see if it has already been proven wrong by production staff.IcarusPhoenix 02:47, August 1, 2010 (UTC) :I've continued the discussion at Talk:Edward Jellico. Unfortunately, we can't use Fletcher's notes except in the absence of other sources, and we do have to deal with the (less than ideal) existence of the Grand Admiral rank (a burden not shared by Memory Alpha, which also doesn't have to accept chipmunks in Super Mario outfits as members of the Enterprise-A's crew, which also comes from the DC comics). I've gone into more detail in the other discussion. --Columbia clipper 03:08, August 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Hi, I just wanted to intervene here. Turner and Smillie are at issue here and we have a definite correlation in trying to reconcile what is up with their ranks and insignia, and titles, all of which are fairly self-evident but have other factors raising doubts. ::The mistakes that have been made is in transposing their ranks, titles, and some issues of their insignia onto other personnel. Just because we have a uniform issue with a higher admiral rank than has ever been seen, it doesn't necessarily follow that all Starfleet leaders retroactively and forward reactively have this rank. As we've seen, rank systems can change, so presuming that Jellico and others hold a Grand Admiral rank is a presumption without a source and presuming that all C-in-Cs hold the rank is also not borne out by facts. -- Captain MKB 12:59, August 1, 2010 (UTC) :::Continue this discussion at Forum:Presuming titles, ranks and insignia in licensed character articles -- Captain MKB 13:26, August 1, 2010 (UTC) A Super Mario Chipmunk was on the Enterprise? Wow, this I've gotta see. – AT2Howell 13:06, August 2, 2010 (UTC) Ranks Just to let you know, I am starting with the monster maroon uniform descriptions on that uniforms' page -- i wrote a few paragraphs on dress uniforms this morning if you wanted to take a look! -- Captain MKB 15:38, August 6, 2010 (UTC) I just look a look at it and made a few minor edits. Nice work. --Columbia clipper 14:06, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Algol Is there another starbase at Algol in addition to Starbase 45? -- Captain MKB 19:14, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :Probably not. I didn't think to check other issues for a return trip to the starbase to Algol. I'll add links to Algol II and Starbase 45 to Algol, and to Starbase 45 at The Fallen}}. Thanks. It would've taken me a few weeks to discover that the Enterprise went back to the starbase. --Columbia clipper 19:24, September 29, 2010 (UTC) Use of pre-release information I noticed your edit comment on Zero Sum Game: "Added references from excerpt on S&S website; Bacco and Jellico may appear in the book, but are only referenced in the excerpt". And would like to highlight a part of the inclusion policy, which states: "...a source must be the complete and final version of a product; information from pre-release material (trailers, excerpts, and previews) is not acceptable for sourcing in-universe information." Your comment highlights why we have that policy; if we are patient, and wait for the final product to be released before adding information from it then we know that information is accurate. If we take data from pre-release previews then we risk adding inaccurate details to articles which could remain on the database for a long time and/or will need to be corrected later. --8of5 17:39, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :My apologies; I wasn't aware of that part of the policy. As you might be able to tell from my previous edits, I'm quite excited about the first two Typhon Pact novels, and was planning to correct any inaccuracies in "Zero Sum Game" about ten days from now. But "Zero Sum Game" can wait. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. --Columbia clipper 17:45, October 16, 2010 (UTC) Not a problem, you're not the only editor that adds references from previews, I don't normally bother to enforce it as the product is out very shortly after previews are released, but in this instance your edit line reminded me of the issues it causes! (I also am greatly anticipating this novel!) --8of5 18:00, October 16, 2010 (UTC) Hello. I am making my own table with rank for a fan fiction character which won't be posted on this Wiki, but I'm stuck. I'm attempting to get the first Krex ship to span into the Lieutenant column, but keep the other there as well, but I can't figure it out. Any help would be great, thanks. Roger Murtaugh 17:59, December 13, 2010 (UTC)